The Cambridge Foucault Lexicon by Leonard Lawlor

The Cambridge Foucault Lexicon is a reference device that gives transparent and incisive definitions and outlines of all of Foucault's significant phrases and affects, together with historical past, wisdom, language, philosophy, and gear. it is also entries on philosophers approximately whom Foucault wrote and who stimulated Foucault's considering, equivalent to Deleuze, Heidegger, Nietzsche, and Canguilhem. The entries are written through students of Foucault from various disciplines comparable to philosophy, gender experiences, political technological know-how, and historical past. jointly, they make clear thoughts key to Foucault and to ongoing discussions of his paintings at the present time.

Husserl is among the most crucial philosophers of the 20 th century and his contribution to the phenomenology circulation is largely recognized. The Cartesian Meditations is his most renowned, and most generally studied paintings. The booklet introduces and assesses: Husserl's existence and historical past to the Cartesian Meditations, the information and textual content of the Cartesian Meditations and the continued imporance of Husserl's paintings to Philosophy.

This accomplished selection of unique essays written through a global crew of students addresses the principal issues in Latin American philosophy. Represents the main entire survey of old and modern Latin American philosophy to be had todayComprises a specifically commissioned number of essays, a lot of them written by way of Latin American authorsExamines the background of Latin American philosophy and its present concerns, strains the advance of the self-discipline, and gives biographical sketches of key Latin American thinkersShowcases the variety of ways, matters, and kinds that symbolize the sphere

Even though Nietzsche is usually pointed out as a forerunner of up to date techniques to interpretations, little cognizance has been paid to the explicit contributions to interpretation concept present in the Nietzschean textual content. Schrift's well-documented research rectifies this case. Drawing on assets from classical and modern French, German and English Nietzsche scholarship, this research makes a speciality of a simple interpretive trouble: how you can keep away from the dogmatic positing of 1 interpretation because the right one with out lapsing into unmitigated relativism within which all interpretations are considered as both valid.

In this regard, Foucault writes, Author / 29 I think that, as our society changes, at the very moment when it is in the process of changing, the author function will disappear, and in such a manner that iction and its polysemous texts will once again function according to another mode, but still with a system of constraint – one that will no longer be the author but will have to be determined, or, perhaps, experienced. (EEW2, 222) As such, for Foucault, when our discursive formation changes into a new one, it is not that the author will die but that it will disappear completely.

This foundational relation always necessitates, again in language similar to the chapter “Man and His Doubles” in The Order of Things, a “return to the origin” within a discourse, in which the modiication of a discourse is always related to the work of its founders. Furthermore, by referring the modiication of a discourse back to its origin, the author-function guarantees the continuity of a discourse, as this reference back does not allow for modiication outside the relation itself. We have now seen how the author-function operates, its various characteristics, and that it operates not only within literary texts but within the founding of discourses as such.

The episteme relects the relations that exist between sciences or discourses, whereas the archive is the set that encompasses these discourses (as well as the relations between them) and gives them their regularities. As Foucault notes, “[t]he archive cannot be described in its totality; and in its presence it is unavoidable” (EAK, 130). “Archaeology,” Foucault’s method of investigation, is “the never completed, never wholly achieved uncovering of the archive” (EAK, 131). ” It is one of the core “framing” concepts for Foucault’s methodological relection on his earlier, empirical studies (History of Madness, The Birth of the Clinic, and The Order of Things), and thus illustrates his attempt to systematize his thinking up to this point.